All have had exports to the U.S. targeted by an obscure national-security trade penalty, U.S. Sen. Todd Young noted Thursday as both Republicans and Democrats on the Senate foreign-relations committee slammed President Donald Trump’s confrontational trade policy.

At a committee hearing with administration officials and business leaders, members repeatedly questioned the notion that Canada poses a risk to America, as implied by Trump’s use of the “section 232” national-security provision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum from Canada and other countries.

Trump’s multi-front trade war, they charged, is killing jobs in the U.S. and driving friends away, just when they’re needed to counter the real economic menace: China.

The committee’s outspoken chairman, Republican Bob Corker, also revealed that White House sources have hinted Trump may put off signing a new deal on NAFTA with Canada and Mexico until after the midterm congressional elections in November.

Administration officials also suggested senators delay their fight against the national-security tariffs imposed on Canada and others until then, which he said suggests the trade machinations are largely political.

“It’s not just an abuse of power … it’s also, I know, offensive to the Canadian people,” Corker told the National Post later about the steel tariffs.

“I don’t think this administration understands how fortunate we are to have the neighbours we have,” he said. “To be sticking a stick in the eye of our closest friends and abusing authorities, and maybe doing it for political purposes, is offensive to those of us here (too).”

Much of the hearing focused on the national-security tariffs, which the president was allowed to impose without Congress’s usual say over trade measures. Young, a Republican from Indiana, noted the only time section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act was wielded before this year was to ban oil imports from Iran after the 1979 Islamic revolution and from Libya in 1982 because of its support of terrorism.

“From a foreign policy perspective,” said Young, “I see an important distinction between 1979 Iran and Canada today.”

The first witness at the hearing was Manisha Singh, a career State Department official whom one senator suggested had been dispatched as “cannon fodder.”

She grimly fielded a barrage of mostly hostile questions, arguing the national-security tariffs were not meant to target any one nation, but to bolster a steel and aluminum sector that’s crucial to America’s defence.

“President Trump has determined that the 232 actions are necessary to preserve the vitality of our domestic industries.”

When Corker suggested that the U.S. exports more steel to Canada than the other way around, Singh said Canada was not considered a security threat.

That prompted Bob Menendez, the committee’s ranking Democrat, to question how Trump could then justify using the national-security tariffs.

He went on to ask if the U.S. had a formal military-production accord with Canada. Singh said she didn’t know.

“The answer is yes,” Menendez added. “We say that it’s a national-security threat at the same time it’s in the midst of producing defence elements for us.”

The Senate on Wednesday passed a non-binding resolution calling on the administration to obtain congressional input before using the national-security clause. But Corker has twice failed to get support for a bill that would make getting Congress’s approval mandatory.

He said administration officials have “sent signals” that senators should hold off on that push until after the midterm elections, and intimated that renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement could also be delayed until Americans have voted in November. Formal, face-to-face NAFTA talks have been on hold for weeks.

But Corker said it’s difficult to tell what the White House really has in mind.

“Not a single person has been able to articulate where this is headed,” said the senator. “It seems to be a wake up, ready, fire, aim strategy.”

This Week's Flyers

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.